To begin with, the book under consideration is Plato’s “The Republic”, and in order to solve our task of interpreting of Socrates’ defense of justice, we find it necessary to tackle the historic personalities of Socrates and Plato and their relationship. This will help to explain the questions under consideration.
Plato was born in Athens in 427 BC, into a wealthy and powerful family. He was meant to take active part in political life of society, but because of
death of his revered teacher and friend Socrates, he was to become increasingly disillusioned with what he saw as the violence and corruption attendant on the Athenian democracy in which he lived. Indeed, his opposition to this system was a key tenet of his thought, as we shall see in the Republic (Purshouse 1).
It is commonly known that Socrates’ favorite method of teaching was to question the pupils for them to get at the truth themselves due to their own intellectual efforts, instead of getting to know the information from the teacher’s lectures directly. Plato has chosen his own teacher, Socrates, to act as the protagonist of his philosophic works – dialogues, and this enables us to learn more about both philosophers.
Main Text
The work “The Republic” presents a special interest for us, because the author has chosen understanding of justice as one of the main themes of the book. Plato formulates the following questions concerning justice: What does it mean “to be just”? What is better for a person: the life of justice or being unjust? He also tackles justice from political point of view: What is required for justice in the state?
Socrates defends justice, and the first case of this defense is offered in “The Republic I”. “Plato begins by addressing the nature of justice as a quality of individual” (Purshouse 9). In “The Republic I” we come across an unpleasant character – Thrasymachus, who is arguing with Socrates about living in accordance with justice (Purshouse 10). Thrasymachus sets an example of life of a tyrant and says that a person can benefit from enjoying individual power and wealth and he claims that it is good to exploit other people. In his turn, Socrates disagrees with him and suggests an entirely opposite point of view, claiming that justice is the greatest advantage.
In “The Republic II” it can be seen that Socrates’ opinion contradicts popular point of view. Glaucon and Adeimantus, who think that they are representatives of common sense, are arguing with Socrates about the essence of justice. Glaucon presents the classification of all existing things on the basis of their division into three different classes and the main task of the philosopher is to prove that justice should occupy the place among the things that are highly desirable.
From Glaucon’s point of view, justice is evil, but people choose to suffer this evil, because otherwise they would have to suffer even more. Glaucon claims that the source of justice is human weakness and fear, because people in society have agreed on this question and have invented a social contract, according to which they have to be just to other people in order not to suffer from somebody’s injustice. People suffer because of justice, but they are scared by other variants, because they know that without justice the life would be even worse.
Glaucon proves his point of view with the help of a concrete example, resorting to the legend of the ring of Gyges. He says that if any person, even a very just person, could possess the ring that could make a person invisible, this person would be sure to start behaving in an unjust way, because there would be no threat of punishment and the person would get a perfect opportunity to satisfy his mean, materialistic and vulgar desires. Glaucon is sure that everybody would be tempted by that opportunity, thus he proves that justice is imposed on people by threat of punishment, it is not justice for the sake of justice.
In his turn, responding to Glaucon’s attack, Socrates introduces two types of political justice: state and individual justice. To explain the essence of state political justice, Socrates suggests building a just city, when every person will have the occupation he is cut out for: “Nothing else was to occupy his time, but he was to spend his life working at that, using all his opportunities to the best advantage and letting none go by” (Plato 54). This city of justice is called “healthy city”, where only producing people will live (Plato 54). Then Socrates introduces “guardians” whose duty will be to defend “the healthy city”.
It must be also mentioned that the essence of justice is also mentioned in other Books, but the final response to the challenge that Socrates faced in Book II is given by Plato’s words in Book IX. Here the philosopher gives the audience a detailed description of a tyrant. It must be reminded, by the way, that in Book II it was claimed that the tyrants were the happiest men and the aristocrats were not. So, Socrates describes a tyrannical man as a person who is in power of his lawless desires. He states that all people have such desires, but they come to people at night in nightmares and in secret thoughts, but we never try to realize these lawless desires. However, a tyrannical man sets his shameful desires free and gradually becomes their slave. He is in total possession of desire of feasts, luxury, and women. These desires take away his money, his strength of will and deprive him of friends. His whole life becomes a nightmare; he suffers because of constant dissatisfaction and regrets. It seems that there can be nothing worse than such a life, but Socrates is able to prove that to be a political tyrant is even worse than to be a private tyrant. He presents a political tyrant as an absolutely isolated person, who is absorbed in his fears of enemies that surround him. Consequently, Socrates manages to prove us that tyrant, who is the most unjust man is the unhappiest man at the same time.
In this very book Socrates explains to us that only philosophers know the essence of the greatest pleasure for a person: it is the pleasure of seeking the truth. And the best kind of pleasure can be received from a just soul.
Conclusion
Finally, the most picturesque proof of the necessity of a person to be just is given, when Socrates describes an unjust person as a creature with three heads: lion’s, beasts and human heads. The unjust person feeds only two heads and that is why all of them are enemies, but a just person feeds human head, which feeds beast’s head and has a lion’s head as its ally. Thus, a just person is in harmony and he is a happy person. Taking all these arguments into consideration, it can be said, that Socrates fully accomplishes his task of defending justice.
Works Cited
Plato. The Republic. USA: READ BOOKS, 2006.
Purshouse, Luke. Plato’s Republic: a Reader’s Guide. Gosport: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006.
An international body like the United Nations has an enormous task with regard to shaping order and justice in world politics. It must balance problems emanating from the actual conceptions of justice and order; it must deal with the needs of these stakeholders and must also look for ways of overcoming its limitations and inefficiencies.
Tensions between justice and order
One significant problem that the United Nations must contend with is the divergence of order and justice in world politics. In certain ways, justice appears to compromise international order. This implies that stakeholders need to make a decision on which of the two concepts should be given precedence over the other (Hoffman, 1986, 185).
According to conservative international relations players, minimum order is the only true value that can be achieved and should therefore come before concerns about justice. On the other hand, revolutionary stakeholders in oppressed parts of the world like the Middle East assert that once justice is instated then disorder may come in temporarily but this will be followed by establishment of a new order (Watson & Headley, 1984, 58).
Progressivists on the other hand hold that justice need not be viewed as a threat to change because it is self defeating to instate change if it will lead to violence. Indeed, they advocate for institution of change in the justice realm only if it will be a result of consensus (Hedley, 2008, par 5).
It can be argued that when consensus exists between all the players in an unjust matter, justice may be achieved without compromising on order as the case was with the independence of colonised states around the world (Headley, 1976, 132)). Britain as well as the colonised states both agreed to self governance; justice and order were instated. On the other hand sometimes the international arena may have a consensus on a certain form of injustice even when the internal players do not agree.
When this occurs, justice may be instated albeit with some minimal disorder which can then be reversed with time (Wheeler & Dunne, 1996, 94). Such a scenario occurred in South Africa when apartheid officially came to an end. The problem for international bodies such as the United Nations occurs when the international arena lacks consensus on a certain issue of justice (Heldley, 2008, par 14). This causes a re-analysis of issues that had previously been written off as closed.
It paralyses these international bodies because their attempts at instating justice may lead to adverse objections and hence disorder. For instance, in 1961, India opted to engage in military action against Portugal after asserting that Portugal had historically been aggressive towards it and it needed to liberate itself. An international body like the UN would be in a dilemma in such a case because revolutionaries would support India’s actions by claiming that just war is a precursor for liberation.
On the other hand, conservatives would argue that India disrupted order in Portugal and this violated their concern for minimum order. In this regard, an international body such as the UN must address the conflicts of justice and order before deciding on the side that it will be taking. In this regard, some analysts have asserted that a choice must be made on what concept will take precedence over the other but because of a lack of consensus then no general prescriptions can be made (Hedley, 2008, par 39).
In fact, the best bet would be to look at the context of a particular case and then weigh the options. The difficulty of making those decisions therefore demonstrates that an international body such as the UN may not have the freedom to act as it pleases (Mazrui, 1996, 59). It has a very difficult role to deal with as it progresses with time.
The UN as an agent for normative integration
Hedley (1977, 77) believes that realist thought on international politics tends to be a little misleading because its overemphasis on security concerns dissuades it from acknowledging the peace inherent in international politics. Furthermore, he argues that international politics can be seen as a system of state actors who are governed by international values (Headley, 1984, 5).
In contrast to the view propelled by realists who assert that states will only act in their own interests, Headley (1977, 85) affirms that states can and do act against their own state interests in order to propel international norms concerning justice. This is often achieved through concepts found in international law. Such principles exist thanks to international actors such as the United Nations who contributed towards the creation and acceptance of common rules in the international role.
There is no doubt that these laws eventually diminish the state of anarchy or disorder in the international system and thus shows why some nations are doing relatively well compared to their pasts. In the realist school of thought, order is understood as a depiction of the dominant interests among predominant powers within the international arena (Waltz, 1979, 69). However, for Hedley (1977, 90) order is therefore a universal value.
It is necessary for state actors to uphold these values because it preserves their interests and that of other states in the world. When a conflict is resolved between two nations, it is not just their interests that will be propagated but that of other nations of the world because all nations are depend on one another (Vincent, 1988, 204). Given the fact that prevalence of universal values is critical in neutralisation of anarchy, the question begs as to who is responsible for these universal values.
The UN can shape the prevalence of order in global politics through promotion, propagation and creation of these values. In this regard, the United Nations plays an important role of acting as an agent for normative integration; universal norms start with this body (Carr, 1983). Therefore when it comes to issues of order, the UN’s role is to be an agent of unification of values (Buergenthal, 1997, 715).
Despite seeming conflicts between the concepts of order and justice, it appears as though the United Nations plays an important role in reconciling these factors. For instance, the Rwandan genocide of 1996 necessitated intervention by international society and this was supported by the UN. The body argued that the chaos in that nation was a threat to humanity and would disrupt international security or order.
On the other hand, the body also asserted that these actions contravened international understanding of justice and were therefore not acceptable. In other words, the UN found a way of uniting interests revolving around order and justice in world politics. This was an exhibition of its ability to be an agent of normative integration. Another illustration of such a role occurred when the United States wanted to instate a global war against terror.
Despite the US’ enormous strength, it first sought approval from the United Nations. It told the body that Iraqi invasion was a just war and that this went hand in hand with international law inherent in the UN. Here, concerns over order in the international arena were being addressed.
On the other hand, the war was also designed to enact a global war on terror. In this regard, it can be seen that the concept of justice was also engrained in the practise because terrorism is seen as an unjust practise that infringes on other people’s human rights.
One can therefore assert that there is a small level of convergence between the concerns over justice as well as the need to preserve order in international politics thanks to the existence and the work carried out by the UN. Nonetheless, one cannot ignore the fact that there still several unanswered questions about the importance of justice in the UN’s quests.
Klotz (1995, 460) explains that the United Nations has been able to make significant progress in terms of engraining international norms amongst state entities. At the time when apartheid was rampant in South Africa i.e. during the 1980s, the world through various state actors and international bodies like the UN responded to this issue through economic, military and cultural sanctions against South Africa.
This implies that there was indeed a huge consensus on a human rights issue hence a justice issue (McDougal, 1960, 35). The world agreed that racial inequality as witnessed through apartheid was not acceptable. This demonstrated that the world had a shared understanding of what normal behaviour was or what it was not supposed to be through the goings on in South Africa. To this end, it can be argued that the international field had been affected by universal norms.
This implies that material concerns were no longer taking precedence as realists would advocate. It is no wonder one particular state i.e. the US was a follower rather than a leader in instating these acts. Despites it’s relatively powerfully status, the United States was actually complying with what other countries of the world were doing. This can be seen by the fact that it had an interest in the economic policies of South Africa but chose not to pursue those interests for the sake of justice.
Limitations of the UN
The UN’s powers are severely limited by the very nature of the international arena. Klotz (1996, 185) argues that sanctions are an important method of reinforcing order and justice although this method can be severely limiting. Sanctions much like other non military policies used by the UN are often characterised by specific state interests. The UN may encourage rich nations to sanction a particular country in order to propagate a certain human right concern. However, the rich nation may have specific trading ties with the targeted country and may therefore hesitate to start sanctioning them.
In fact, some countries have out rightly defied directions given by the United Nations on imposing sanctions because of the economic interests that they may get from such countries. In fact, the sanctions may only succeed once state interests converge with international norms. These gaps in the process of reinforcement may therefore impede the ability of the UN to truly shape justice and order in world politics.
Koskenniemi (1995, 330) claims that the United Nations has sometimes overstepped its boundaries and this has sparked a lot of criticism from international lawyers, diplomats and the like. One such case occurred when the UN wanted to impose peace arrangements on Iraq in the nineteen nineties.
Furthermore, the UN also endorsed the sending back of two Libyans when the International court of justice held a different view. These matters and many more have brought into question the UN’s ability to make real change with regard to justice and order without going beyond its mandate. These controversies therefore slow down their endeavours
Internalisation of international norms advocated by the UN
The United Nations’ most relevant documentation is the international declaration of human rights that was put into effect in 1948. With this declaration, it was assumed that the international arena would be greatly characterised by improvements in justice and order. However, one thing such optimistic individuals had not covered was the process of internationalisation of the declaration or the values and norms inherent in them.
Principled ideas propagated by international bodies like the United Nations must be socialised by the concerned parties in order to turn them into norms which can then alter their behaviour. In this regard, one should note that there is a distinct difference between an idea held by a specific entity like the UN and a norm which is a collective expectation by a number of entities.
Furthermore, member states would still need to convert those norms into tangible actions as well. This may be very complicated for some countries or may take longer than is necessary. In this regard, the UN’s ability to truly shape order and justice becomes diminished because other obstacles have come in the way (Rise and Sikkink, 1999, 5).
There can be several ways that the process of internalising international ideas can be hampered. For instance, countries that were engaging in an act that the United Nations considered unjust may have a particularly hard time changing the practical actions of its citizens even after accepting the idea that the act was wrong (Risse, 1999, 54).
For example, the UN asserts that extra judicial killings are unacceptable. Some militaries around the world have been engaging in these acts and may not consider them wrong. However, if their states decide to comply with UN principles, in other words if they have accepted the UN ideas as norms, it then becomes difficult to make sure that all the members of the military stop acting in such a manner.
The problem for the UN is that states are not just homogenous entities. They are composed of individuals who each have their own interests. Eventually, extra judicial killings may continue even when such nations have already accepted UN principles (Rise and Sikkink, 1999, 18).
The ability of the norms to influence behaviour is also another issue that may block the UN’s success in dealing with problems of justice and order. In other words, a principle needs to be personal and strong enough to induce some positive action from the perpetrators of those actions. Furthermore, entities must also have the will power to do what is right even when that has not been happening in the past.
This may not always occur amongst specific individuals and it therefore hamper’s the UN achievements in world politics. In such circumstances, these nations must realise that the actions are still going on and then impose punishments to counter them. Sometimes it may take longer to reinforce sanctions or punishments designed to hamper contraventions to UN principles. Accountability would have easily solved such a matter (Baurnett, 19997, 527).
Issues of continuity also need to be addressed when looking at the internationalisation process. Sanctions are largely understood as one method for reinforcing justice and order internationally and the UN adversely contributes to this concept by supporting nations that do. In certain circumstances, a country may be sanctioned from receiving economic aid or otherwise from economically able countries.
After some time, such a nation may instate the necessary reforms propagated by the UN or other international bodies. However, one may find that aid is still not forthcoming from the powerful nations because these countries may already possess a bias towards former sanctioned states.
The biases comes in the way of true reform because aid dependent nations will not enjoy any positive change in their lives even after making sure that they have complied with international regulations (Coate et al, 2007, 118),. Those nations whose internalisation process was tied to their image and perceptions in the outside world instead of actual principles may be persuaded to resort to their past actions since changes do not yield results. These complexities all come in the way of greater success for UN backed concerns of justice and order.
Conclusion
The United Nations has played a part in the shaping of order and justice in world politics by being an agent of normative integration. This can be witnessed through several achievements such as the antiapartheid movement. On the other hand, its ability to influence these factors is affected by the internalisation process of international ideas, the complexity of world politics, specific interests of sovereign nations and the tensions between order and justice.
Risse, T. and Sikkink, K. (1999). The Socialization of International Human Rights Norms into Domestic Politics in Thomas Risse and Stephen C. Ropp (eds.), 1999 The Power of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klotz, A. (1995).Norms reconstituting interests: global racial equality and U.S. sanctions against South Africa, International Organization, 49( 3), 451-478.
Hedley, B. (1977). The Anarchical Society (Chapter 4: Order versus Justice in World Politics). Columbia: Columbia university press.
Klotz, A. (1996). Norms and sanctions: lessons from the socialization of South Africa, Review of International Studies, 22 (2), 173-190.
Hedley, B. (1984). The Concept of Justice in International Relations in Justice in International Relations: Hagey Lectures, 1983-84, Waterloo, Ont: University of Waterloo, pp. 1-18.
Vincent, R. (1988). Hedley Bull and order in international politics, Millennium, 17 (2), 195-213.
Buergenthal, T. (1997). The normative and institutional evolution of international human rights, Human Rights Quarterly, 19(4) 703-723.
Risse, T. (1999). International Norms and Domestic Change: Arguing and Communicative Behaviour in the Human Rights Area. Politics & Society, 27, 529-559.
Barnett, M. (1997). Bringing in the New world order: liberalism, legitimacy and the UN. Journal of world politics, 49, 526-51.
Koshenniemi, M. (1995). Order, justice and the UN; dialectical view. EJIL, 6, 325-348.
Coate, R. Forsythe, D. & Weiss, T. (2007). The United Nations and changing world politics. London: Westview press.
Mazrui, A. (1966). Towards a pax-Africana. A study of ideology and ambition. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
McDougal, M. (1960). Studies in world public order. New Haven: Yale press.
Headley, B. (1976). Martin wright and the theory of international relations. International studies journal, 19(3), 269-283.
Watson, A. & Headley, B. (1984). The revolt against the west. Oxford: OUP.
Wheeler, N.& Dunne, T. (1996). Hedley Bull’s pluralism of the intellect & Solidarism of the will. Journal of international affairs, 72(1), 94.
Hoffman, S. (1986). Headley Bull and his contribution to international relations. Journal of international affairs, 62(2), 185.
Carr, E. (1983). An introduction to the study of international relations. London: Mcmillan.
Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.
Why does Annette Baier think we need “more than justice”? What more does she have in mind? Using two other philosophers or readings, argue for or against Baier’s position.
Annette Baier’s article ‘The Need for More Than Justice’ is concerned with the shortcomings of a system of ethics based exclusively on justice. The philosopher’s approach to ethics presented in this article consists of the following. Men and women differ in their assumptions of right and wrong because of the different value systems they have. Whereas males take moral decisions according to the idea of justice, women are ruled by the sense of trust and caring. The author claims that as a history of philosophy has been created by men, philosophy often fails to take into account the role of nurture and trust.
Baier suggests introducing ‘care’ as an ethical system, to extend the traditional liberal theory of justice. She maintains that caretaking fulfills humans’ emotional needs. Care should be both maintained between equals and unequal. There should not be any differentiation between men and women when it comes to caring, the ethos is universal.
According to Baier, the category of care will design ethics for practical application. Care is more concrete than justice and, therefore, is more likely to make the world a more pleasant place. Baier focuses on the practical implication of women who can transmit care to their children thus changing the world for the better.
Also, care becomes the main concern of Patricia Hill Collins’s work ‘Black Women and Motherhood’. The book depicts the way black communities raise their families; it examines how family, friends, and people, in general, take part in child-raising and the mothers’ style in parenting.
As in African-American communities bringing children by mother alone is unwise and impossible, therefore, parenting comes from the biological mother, friends, family, and the community where the child grows up. The author claims that this is care that unites all the links of this complex system. As the responsibilities of child care are shared between each other, this contributes to the establishment of trustworthy communities. In such communities, people become stuck together against race, gender, and class problems. Here where the connection between care and justice is revealed.
The problem of care is considered by many feminist philosophers and is the characteristic feature of feminist ethics in general. Women cannot remain indifferent to family problems, to children’s upbringing; one can hardly consider these issues without giving proper consideration to caretaking. Feminist ethics will keep on seeking the most appropriate way to apply to caretake for making considerable changes in human relationships.
Describe a moral problem you have recently had to deal with. Choose two traditional philosophers that we have read and explain how you would approach the problem from their philosophical vantage point. Then examine the problem from the perspective of care ethics. Which of these approaches do you find most helpful and why?
It often happens that in the course of everyday life one faces a lot of ethical problems to solve. Everyday moral choices are made by people regarding this or that philosophical theory. Even if we do it subconsciously, normally, we are ruled either by consequentialist, deontological theories, or ethics of care approaches.
Recently I had to deal with the following ethical problem: one of my fellow students strongly believes in God, this faith of his seems to be fanatic. His actions often strike the people around, as most people believe that it is impossible to live in the modern world with such a kind attitude to the events around that his faith dictates him. For example, when some problem arises because of someone’s fault, he stands the racket; when someone offends him he keeps silent and never tries to defend himself.
The numerous examples of this type created an image of this boy as a bit strange one. He does not have any friends; earlier, it was me who was patient with his strange stories about God and conduct ruled by religious principles. But one day I could not bear any longer his behavior. Being a person who does not believe in any superpower I found it extremely difficult to communicate with him. He noticed that and asked about the reason for my reluctance to talk to him. On the one hand, I knew that I could not spend so much time listening to the concepts that contradicted my views; on the other, I could not leave that person alone, I was the only one who he could rely on.
Regarding my problem from the point of view of consequentialist ethics the first name that comes to my mind is Auguste Comte. This French philosopher who coined the term ‘altruism’ seems to have foreseen my problem in detail.
Ethical altruism is a concept of consequentialist ethics that implies that one should take actions that have the best consequences for other people, disregarding one’s own welfare. Live for others – this is the main principle of the philosophy I am talking about.
I am not sure whether I am ready to sacrifice myself for the benefit of the whole society and the fellow student, in particular. In the long run, it seems to me that this possible sacrifice of mine will not be appropriately appreciated by him, and even the fact that I have thoughts of the type does not allow me to take this philosophy as the leading one in my life.
If I think over my problem from the point of view of deontological ethics and William David Ross’s, in particular, I will see that I need to be ruled by the following duties: duty of beneficence (which makes me help the boy somehow), the duty of non-maleficence (that states that I should avoid harming him), the duty of justice (which means that if the boy deserves to be understood by others, they should at least listen to him), the duty of self-improvement (helping the boy I will improve my abilities to understand others, and to help them), the duty of reparation (when I understand the boy was treated wrongly, I should act somehow to recompense him), the duty of gratitude (I realize that the boy has benefited me, therefore, I should benefit him), the duty of promise-keeping (though I have not given any promise to him, if he once felt that he could rely on me, I should not let him down). This philosophy seems rather close to me, but as well as the previous one, requires much effort from me.
Considering my problem from the ethics of care developed by feminist critics (S. Bartky, C. Gilligan, V.Held, and others) I should pay more attention to the relationships between the boy and the people around and me, in particular. If I want to preserve the relationships that have some value for me, I should do my best to understand the essence of the problem and to solve it regarding both the boy’s position and my own preferences.
Thus, all the theories that I have discussed above can be applicable to my problem. Each of them has a grain of truth and if appropriately made use of the problem will disappear by itself.
Outright sexist attitudes, the threat of violence, care of dependents, and racism are some of the factors that women have claimed work against their full acceptance as equal citizens. Choose three readings to illustrate how two or three of these factors are discussed by feminist ethics. Choose one author and explain if you agree or disagree with the position she or he argues for.
Feminist ethics does not restrict to criticism of male supremacy only. Such issues as racism and the threat of violence are closely inspected in the works of S. Bartky, P. H. Collins, D. Roberts, and other feminists.
Sandra Bartky’s views on the problem of racism are displayed in her ‘Feminist Ethics’ series. She argues that people are to blame for racism when they benefit from it without protest. Going by the philosopher, the most dramatic thing in the problem of racism is that white people do not consider themselves to be responsible for the perpetration they make. As far as people’s attitude to racism is concerned, Bartky singles out the following types: the Fantasists – those who believe that there is no problem of racism as it has already been overcome; the Clueless – those who do not understand racism at all; the Culpably Ignorant – those who want to know much about the problem, actually, know it and realize it, but are not able to use their knowledge to solve the problem; the Self-Deceivers – those who are capable, but not ignorant and know a great deal about racism; the Fatalists – those who do not deny white racism, but do not believe that anything can be done about the problem; the Deplorers – people who recognize racism for the evil and deplore it instead of acting against it.
The author’s position about the importance of taking responsibility for every action of us appeals to me. I am inclined to believe that the problem of racism is rooted in the people’s disregard of their personal responsibility for their unjust treatment of people of different skin color. Bartky’s classification seems absolutely fair, but I can also add such groups, as the Self-Interested – those who benefit from the racial problem and the fearful – those who do realize the seriousness of the problem but are extremely afraid of becoming opposed to the norms existing in society.
One more problem that Bartky touches upon is the problem of the constant threat of violence that women face with. The philosopher understands violence against women as caused not simply because of their sex, but in its close interconnection with race and class. These three factors – gender, race, and class – engender violence against women, according to S. Bartky.
Another representative of feminist ethics, Patricia Hill Collins argues that the problem of racism is closely interconnected with oppressions of race, class, gender, and sexuality. Oppositions caused to black women resulted from external definitions of black womanhood. Black women, going by P. Collins, have created world views striving for self-definition and being ruled by the desire to work on behalf of social justice. Collins claims women in black communities are under the threat of extreme violence and this problem should be served on the state level.
Dorothy Roberts’ work ‘Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction and the Meaning of Liberty’ is concerned with the problem of liberty and equality in American society from a black feminist perspective. Racism is treated in different aspects: the author analyzes the birth control for poor black women, the parental rights of black women, the new reproductive technologies that wealthy white couples use to ensure genetically related offspring. Roberts concludes that the role of government is the crucial one in fostering American liberty and equality throughout the country. The threat of violence is regarded by the author as the state one. Roberts explores past and contemporary torture caused by the U.S to foreigners to maintain white supremacy.
As we can see the problems that feminist ethics is concerned with are rather diverse and problematic. As they need urgent solving, they will always be hot-debatable and feminist ethics will always strive to solve them.
The veil of ignorance in John Rawls’s philosophy is a way in which the importance of impartiality in justice-based ethics is manifested. Explain what the veil of ignorance is and how it functions in Rawls. How is the value of impartiality evident in one of the other philosophers we have read. Are there situations in ethical life where impartiality may not be desirable? Use still another reading to explain why or why not?
Contemporary philosopher John Rawls in his work ‘Toward a Theory of Justice’ suggested the concept of the veil of ignorance. This method was introduced by him to define which social customs were just and which were unjust. Its main principle is impartiality manifested in justice-based ethics.
Rawls talked about a society that was absolutely different from the existing one. People of that society were in an original position behind a veil of ignorance. This veil meant that the rule was considered just if everyone agreed to it being ignorant of one’s position in society. Behind the veil of ignorance, people knew nothing of their sex, race, nationality, individual tastes, and natural abilities. The existence of such a veil makes all people morally equal and free. Thus, Rawls’s society differs from the real world by the fact that people are not distinguished by any criteria and decide what is just and what is unjust irrespectively of their own self-interest.
Any personal knowledge could prevent people from following the principles of justice that are according to Rawls should be: general in form, universal in application, commonly recognized, considered as the final authority, and should prioritize conflicting claims. Class position, social status, natural talents, abilities, intelligence, a plan for a good life are distributed equally in society and the latter will be designed fairly as people do not risk ending up in an intolerable position.
The problem of impartiality acquires its close examination also in Kant’s works. Kant investigates impartiality is studied in terms of universalizability. He claims that defining whether something is just or unjust is universalizable, that is independent of any particular point of view.
My view is that this position is not acceptable for modern society, as its progress is determined by the examination of all of the factors that people were ignorant of in Rawl’s society. During the present days, impartiality does not hold any good in its store and hampers the general development of any society.
References
Baier, A. C. (1994). Essays on Ethic. Harvard University Press.
Bartky, S. L. (2002). Sympathy and Solidarity: and Other Essays. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Comte, A. (1998). Introduction to Positive Philosophy. Hackett Pub Co Inc.
Rawls, J.(2005). A Theory of Justice: Original Edition. Belknap Press.
Ross, W. D. (2007). Foundations Of Ethics. Bakhsh Press.
The issue of the poor, minorities and justice has remained as a source of controversy in the American society. With the country having witnessed high levels of segregation and discrimination on the basis of gender and race among other identity parameters, this issue remains debatable in the American justice system.
The interplay between minority groups and the justice system has significant impact in shaping the perception of people towards the system and how these people are likely to feel secure and acceptable in the wider society. This paper discusses theses relationships and possible ways of ensuring fair justice for the poor and minority.
Law enforcement vs. minority groups
The relationship between law enforcement agents like the police and minority groups has always sparked criticism and drawn the attention of many people. The two parties are known to relate in a hostile manner, limiting the efficacy in service delivery to minorities in the society.
From history, the American legal order tolerated and sustained discrimination, segregation and sustained slavery for a long period of time in history. By the fact that police officer were to uphold the order, shaped police behavior, attitude towards minorities and overall relationships between the two.
The nurtured pattern therefore indicates that minorities are entitled to fewer civil rights, are to be always under police control and that it is not the responsibility of police officers to offer complete protection against crime. As a result, minorities were left powerless and at odds with the police due to their minimum recognition.
In addressing the conflict between law enforcers and minorities, police reforms are essential. Coupled with learning, police officers would be trained and taught the need for equality in law enforcement. Additionally, such reforms would allow people minorities to understand their rights to be protected by the police.
Additionally, the issues of minorities and the justice system with reference to the pretrial process, trail and adjudication, sentencing and the death penalty are real and detrimental to the entire system. Although the justice system is mandated to apply law during legal and judicial processes, many of the laws have disproportionate impact on minorities. Their rights during rulings and trials are reduced, making them more vulnerable to death penalty and harsh court verdicts.
Additionally, race and social class are key players in most criminal justice processes in the United States. There is wide-spread inequality in the criminal justice system which impact several spheres of life. The determining factors for those who are jailed and incarcerated are employment and education. As are a result, an individual found guilty of committing a crime causes the entire family to suffer.
There is huge disparity between Whites, Blacks and the increasing population of Hispanics. Therefore race and social class determine the impact of the criminal justice system with favoritism and disparity taking center stage.
New Jim Crow
As a cited in “The New Jim Crow”, the history of minorities is strongly linked the emergence of drug business in the American society in the 20th century. This period saw many Black youths arrested and jailed for long periods while White drug dealers were left to go free. Cases of drug usage were common in not only in campuses and campuses but in the entire American culture. Many drug kingpins lavished in their marijuana business as Black youths were rounded and imprisoned for more than ten years.
To make matters worse, these youths paid dearly to the society; after being arrested for these years, their rights were taken away. For instance, they were not allowed to vote, faced massive discrimination against employment and housing. All these aspects of discrimination and social injustices resembled the Jim Crow laws.
As a result of the war on drugs, incarcerations related to drug offenses have tremendously increased by 1,000 percent from the year 1980. This has majorly been triggered by incentives given to law enforcing agencies through grants and political gains and then jobs that are created when prisons are constructed.
On the other side, continue to suffer, facing illegal searchers by police officers, racial profiling and shakedowns. Although research indicates almost percentage of drug users and dealers among all races, African American adds up to 90 percent of convicts.
Prisoners in U.S
From prison research around the world, it has been found the United States has the highest number of prisoners compared to Chinese and Russian jails combined. This is attributed to a number of reasons, some of which revolve around racial discrimination in the criminal justice system.
For instance, black males have the highest probability of finding themselves in prison. While this likelihood is represented by 16%, white males have a 2% probability of going to jail. This disparity has seen thousands of male and female Black Americans end in jail unlike other countries which do not have such discriminatory rules.
Another major cause is long sentences given to criminals. Unlike in China and Russia, first time drug offenders are sentenced to a minimum of five years in prison. Additionally, the War on drugs contributed the rise in the number of prisoners after President Nixon authorized a crackdown on the drug business.
According to recent statics, there are approximately half a million prisoners convicted of drug offenses compare to 40,000 in 1981. The solutions for these factors include implementation of reforms in the criminal Justice System to reduce the sentence period. Additionally, other ways of dealing with drug offenders need to be introduced in order to cut down on the number of people landing in jail.
Victimization and race
The highest number of victimization cases in the United States was reported between 1993 and 1998 with American Indians leading in the number of sustained violence. Statistically, out of 1000 American Indians, 119 suffered victimization (Rennison, 2001). This rate was viewed to be double the number sustained by black people and almost four and a half times among Asians.
With regard to murder, black people have the highest risk than all other American inhabitants. On the other hand, the American Indians experience the highest violence including simple and aggravated assault and serious crimes compared to other races in the country (Rennison, 2001).
High victimization among minorities is caused by a wide range of factors. Firstly, marital status plays a major role in determining victimization level. Statistics indicated that between 1993 and 1999 married American Indians experienced then highest number of victimization than any other category of races.
Secondly, the place of residence also determine victimization rate with American Indians leading among people living in urban areas (Rennison, 2001). According their rate was twice that of Blacks and Whites. The level of income is also associated with the level of victimization. American Indians experienced the highest level of victimization. The nature of housing also influences the level of victimization among different groups.
Within “owned houses”, American Indians are more victimized than black and white people, at a rate of approximately three and a half higher. The same trend is observed under rented residence. The impact on low socio-economic communities of cutbacks in police and low salaries for police would lead to exploitation of people. Low salaries for police officers would also result into corruption and high level of crime as they get discouraged (Rennison, 2001).
Strain and conflict theory
Strain theory has commonly been used in explaining criminal cases like age, sex and community. According to this theory, societal structures have the potential of triggering citizens to commit crimes. This theory has been developed by theorists like Emile Durkheim, Robert Merton and Albert Cohen among others.
Additionally this theory describes societal structures as processes at a given level in the society that determine the manner in which a person perceives his or her needs. If these structures are inadequate, they may shape an individual’s view over means and possible opportunities.
In this case, “individual” refers to frictions and struggles in satisfying their needs. On the other hand, the conflict theory focuses on competition among social groups. According to advocates of these theories, powerful members of higher groups lead as law makers and gain dominance. In explaining crime, these theorists argue that, due to differences in classes, legislation is controlled by a few, who may not easily face the law compared to lower class members.
Juvenile Justice System
Juvenile Justice System has continuously been used to draw a line between juvenile and adult criminals in the United States. However, the line has been differently drawn in various places and for different reasons. This was historically influenced by England’s common law, which was a key instrument in the governing of American colonies. William Blackstone is highly regarded for his contribution. One of the programs commonly incorporated in juvenile delinquency prevention is education.
Youths are taught how to avoid crime in schools. Recreation also allows youths to spend their time free away from crime. Community involvement programs also allow a harmonic social environment. This is done through establishment of boy and boy scouts. Bullying prevention programs are common in junior high schools to help students cope with cases of bullying in learning institutions (Lawshop, 2011).
It should be known that restorative justice lays more emphasis on the needs of victims and offenders. This is done at the expense of satisfying various legal principles that are supposed to be followed. As a matter of fact, it does not pay attention on punishing the offender (Sullivan and Tifft 4).
As far as restorative justice is concerned, victims are supposed to be actively involved in the process. On the other hand, offenders are also expected to be responsible for their individual actions. By taking responsibility, offenders will be repairing the harm that they have done.
Restorative justice should foster dialog between the victim and offender. This will in turn show the expected rate of offender accountability and victim satisfaction. In a broad perspective, restorative justice should be seen as a balance. For instance, it can be a balance to reduce different tensions (Sullivan and Tifft 5).
A balance for the needs of the victims and offenders rights can be reached through restorative justice. Wholesomely, there is a very big difference between traditional justice and restorative justice.
This is because traditional justice seeks to look at the laws that have been broken and who was responsible. Restorative justice on the other hand looks at those people who have been harmed. As a matter of fact, their needs are also looked at. Restorative justice is a process that needs to be well carried out for sustainability.
This is as far as coming up with a solution to the problem is concerned (Sullivan and Tifft 7). Everybody should be involved in the process to come up with a binding solution that will leave all stakeholders satisfied. This is as far as justice is concerned.
This paper will mainly focus on restorative justice in regards to the current Egyptian crisis. The current Egyptian conflict is a complex situation that needs to be critically evaluated for a long lasting solution. Currently, there are ongoing anti-government demonstrations around the country.
This is the biggest test ever to President Hosni Mubarak’s 30 years rule (Washington post 12). Violent demonstrations have been witnessed in various areas around the capital Cairo. It should be known that these demonstrations have disrupted transport between various centers and airports.
As a matter of fact, communication services have been disrupted by these demonstrations. To try and calm the situation, the Egyptian government has imposed a curfew throughout the country (Washington post 16). The current conflict is among various demonstrations that have been witnessed across the Arab world in recent weeks and months.
Demonstrators have been against the government and they have indicated that they will stop at nothing but to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak. In fact, they have indicated that they want him out soonest (The Telegraph 29).
There have been measures like the resignation of the ruling party officials but this has done nothing to stop the crisis. These demonstrations have shook the government and created the worst crisis ever. Soldiers have been arresting looters and this is a sign that the military is taking some security measures (Washington post 13).
Police have been accused of brutality but their disappearance from streets had led to a threat of widespread looting. This is set to be addressed by the military that has been brought in to calm the situation. The Egyptian state has been accused of caring for the few and ignoring the majority.
Power has been flowing from the gun in Egypt and this might be reason why demonstrators have increased their efforts. This means that good leaders who have authority are not supposed to shoot people (Basire 16).
In this case, the government (Mubarak’s) has shot various demonstrators in recent weeks and this is not good. The Egyptian conflict has various aspects to it because in the past days, there have been pro-government supporters who have also come out to support Mubarak.
These demonstrations have centered on lack of employment/jobs and poor lives. Although the president has come out to promise demonstrators more jobs and reforms, there are no clear sighs that he is willing to step down as expected (Washington post 21).
Protestors in Egypt have been inspired by the Tunisian crisis where their leader was forced out. Demonstrators are angry at widespread poverty and rising prices that have made life to be difficult for them (The Telegraph 26). Claims of corruption and torture have further complicated the situation.
This crisis therefore brings us to the question of whether insurgency can be restorative in any way. The current crisis in the Arab world in based on this fact and demonstrators believe that insurgency is the only way to resolve their problems.
Restorative justice is an insurgency in a broad way (Basire 32). In this case, restorative justice competes with social arrangements and the state. The pain and suffering of the Egyptian demonstrators should be resolved because they have indicated that they need some things sorted out in their society.
As much as this is the only way that their grievances could be addressed, restorative justice will expose the nature of power based orders (Rosenau 18). The Egyptian conflict can not be addressed by the society’s structures because this is a case where the whole society is mounting an insurgency to air out their grievances.
The society is supposed to value its institutions and respect them but this is not always the case. Normally, there are other avenues that can be used to address such problems but Egyptians believe that their problems can not be addressed by such institutions.
Egyptian demonstrations have been aimed at meeting the needs of the whole society. This insurgency therefore aims to restore their hope for good lives and jobs. As much as Egyptians understand the political aspects of restorative justice, they feel that they can only achieve their aspirations through insurgency.
It has been proven that a society can only mount an insurgency if it feels that there are various issues that are supposed to be solved (Basire 27). This therefore tries to explain the fact that people will chose this as an option if they have been pushed to the wall.
Insurgency can be restorative because there are various demands that we explain how a state or individual can deny responsibility for atrocities that have been committed (Sullivan and Tifft 17). Egyptians believe that they will be able to restore their society if Hosni Mubarak steps aside.
In this case, they are holding him responsible for all the problems that they are currently facing. This is solely based on the fact that he has been in power for 30 years and some of these demonstrators feel that he has not done enough.
The people of Egypt have their own cultural autonomy and as such should be listened to. This insurgency has therefore given them a good opportunity to air out their grievances. The people of Egypt have come up in large numbers to support this insurgency with a cause.
Therefore, this insurgency will be restorative in a broad way (Rosenau 26). As much as the people of Tunisia had their way, this is not a good trend that other countries and citizens are supposed to emulate and follow.
Leaders like Hosni Mubarak are supposed to be sensitive to people’s needs and correct problems before they become grave (Sullivan and Tifft 14). There is a tendency to ignore the wishes of the majority and this is not good at all as far as ethics of good leadership are concerned.
It is not understandable as per to why Mubarak could only promise reforms and jobs after seeing that demonstrators were indeed serious. The Egyptian conflict will unfold as restorative and healing depending on the final outcome. This is because Hosni Mubarak is not showing any sighs that he will step down anytime soon.
All in all, there is a good effort to ensure that burning issues are addressed. For instance, the newly appointed vice president is expected to spearhead negotiations that will go ion a big way to resolve the impasse (The Telegraph 19). This will restore public confidence in the government and give them a new sense of life.
All stakeholders are supposed to be consulted and involved in coming up with a long lasting solution to this problem (Basire 32). The Egyptian government can not go on with its normal operations as if everything is right but there should be efforts to resolve various outstanding issues.
This can explain why president Barrack Obama has called for a peaceful transition (Washington post 11). Other future insurgencies can be restorative and healing based on the approach that they will be given by the society at large and all stakeholders.
The Egyptian situation is fragile and it should be used to stabilize the country and restore order and confidence in governance (The Telegraph 21). This will only be achieved if people’s grievances are attended to immediately and urgently.
The justice system has experienced substantial organizational growth and improvement over the years. This growth promoted individualized treatment of offenders achieved through institutionalization which led to establishment of prisons, juvenile courts among other rehabilitation facilities. These institutions serve the purpose of rehabilitating prisoners as well as instilling desirable values among them.
Over the years, the crime rates and prison population have escalated substantially across most regions in the world. This has consequently resulted in overcrowding of correctional facilities and prisons. Prison congestion is a widespread problem that cuts across most regions and needs to be urgently addressed due to its negative effects on the process of rehabilitation of offenders.
Reasons for Prison Congestion
Although no direct correlation between crime rates and prison has been established, several explanations have been put forward to explain the rising problem of prison congestion. Prisons may be overcrowded due to failure to allocate resources or lack of resources to establish adequate modern prisons to accommodate the increasing number of prisoners.
In addition, elevated crime rate increases the number of people carrying imprisonment sentences consequently promoting prison congestion. In most regions, congestion in the criminal justice system begins in courts where the overall judicial process is slow. Prison congestion consequently arises since large numbers of offenders are held indefinitely in prisons awaiting trial or due to missing files and complex law procedures.
Sentencing policies in the criminal justice system plays a significant role in influencing the number of people serving jail terms. These sentencing policies are highly influenced by public opinion. There is need for reforms in the criminal justice legal system in order to discourage unnecessary and unfair sentencing.
Further, most criminal justice systems are often associated with corruption, irregularities and malpractices which increases cases of unjustified sentencing. In developing countries, the highest proportion of the population is poor hence lacks the resources to hire private legal representation.
Although some countries such as United States provide legal representation for the financially incapable, the wealthy often face lower convictions rates for similar crimes than the less fortunate.
Most criminal justice systems lack after care and follow up services for discharged inmates. After care services are a very important follow up strategy on offenders designed to transform the offender social isolation and dependence resulting from imprisonment and to further accelerate his ability to adjust in the community (Devi 216).
Often ex-convict face ostracism from society and this may hinder their improvement efforts. After care services promote improvement among the discharged offender hence reducing the likelihood of repetition of offence which may lead to imprisonment (Devi 216).
Effects of prison congestion
In addition to hindering effective rehabilitation process, prison congestion adversely affect the lives of the prisoners and the society at large. The criminal justice system often fails to respond to crime in a humane and efficient manner hence in most parts of the world, prisons display elements of violation of human rights.
Research has revealed that prison conditions adversely affect inmates’ lives which in some cases lead to death. This raises the question whether prison are institutions of rehabilitation or punishment. For the society to regain confidence in the criminal justice system, the system should ensure that the criminal rehabilitation process is effective and offenders are transformed into law abiding citizens.
Possible Solutions to the Problem of Congestion in Prisons
The criminal justice systems need to be reformed such that they incorporate and ensures that the human rights standards are not violated in prisons. This can be achieved through extensive training of criminal justice personnel.
In order to significantly reduce incidences of overcrowding in prisons in our countries, overall sentencing policy should be reviewed and the criminal justice system should ensure that the law governing criminal offences reserves imprisonment sentences to extreme cases that require in structured and monitored institutions (Devi 211).
Minor offenders and offenders who can reform through therapeutic settings in the community should not be imprisoned but should be released under probation basis (Devi 211).
The reformed convicts who have served enough in jail should be set free as long as they are not a threat to the society. However, such provisions have to include extensive analysis of risk management, coping and adjusting capabilities of the inmates preceding their release to ensure that they do not face circumstances that will prompt them to go back to their previous wayward behaviors.
The question regarding investment on prisons should be approached purely as a human resource development issue aiming at improvement in the quality of life among a country’s population in addition to protecting the society from criminals and crime incidences (Devi 212) and not merely as wastage of resources.
Conclusion
Prison congestion is a major problem that needs to be addressed in order for the criminal justice system to perform effectively. Overcrowding of prisons hinders rehabilitation process and negatively impacts on society. It is therefore vital for the legal system to formulate and implement policies that are geared towards reduction of the number of people in these institutions.
This will allow easier management and rehabilitation of offenders under improved conditions which will ensures that the sole purpose of the criminal justice system which is to ensure that criminals transform into reliable and law abiding citizens is achieved.
Works Cited
Devi, Laxmi. Encyclopedia of social change. New Delhi: Anmol publications PVT. Ltd, 1996
The past decades have been characterised by numerous cases of civil and international conflicts. Some of the countries that were previously engaged in domestic and international conflicts have made substantial progress as a result of effective conflict resolution.
However, incidences of domestic and international conflicts are still evident in the modern society as illustrated by the current civil war in Syria and the conflict between Sudan and South Sudan.
According to Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall (2011), there are various sources of conflicts. Some of the main sources of conflicts in the modern society relate to global, regional, individual, group, and state factors. To understand conflict, it is important for one to conduct a comprehensive conflict analysis.
Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall (2011) define conflict analysis as the logical process of evaluating the dynamics that lead to occurrence of conflicts. Conflict analysis is conducted by assessing the profile, actors and causes associated with a particular situation.
There are various theories that have been formulated to explain how conflict occurs. One of these theories is the structural violence theory.
The theory advocates for a comprehensive analysis of the various structures that lead to occurrence of conflict. Some of the structures relate to political, social, legal and economic aspects. In summary, conflict analysis seeks to understand the relationship between the various elements that stimulate conflicts.
Conflicts hinder development of long term peace within the society. However, integration of an effective reconciliation process can enhance development of long term peace. This paper is aimed at achieving two main objectives.
One of the objectives include analysing the reasons why structural violence theory advocates for a comprehensive structural analysis. Secondly, the paper evaluates the degree to which reconciliation is important in building long-term peace and the role of justice in the reconciliation process.
Why does the theory of structural violence emphasise the importance of structures in conflict analysis? Is this importance justified?
There are numerous cases of human rights violations which have been documented over the years. Some of the salient features that illustrate the extent to which human rights have been violated include the severe degree of social and economic inequality in the society (Ho 2007).
One of the dimensions of human rights violation includes the structural violation which is evidenced by the prevailing cases of starvation, diseases and poverty in the modern society (Ho 2007).
Dealing with structural violation is very challenging. This arises from the fact that it is not easy to hold a particular person or organisation accountable. Ho (2007) asserts that ‘when you see starving children, diseased bodies and desperate poverty, it is not easy to point fingers’ (p.2). This underscores the importance of integrating structural violence theory in understanding such situation.
John Galtung defined violence to include the destruction of human life which lowers someone’s ability to attain their basic needs (Jacoby 2007). The development of structural violence theory was motivated by Marxist ideas on how power and class results in unequal treatment of individuals. The theory underscores the importance of understanding the underlying structures.
Ho (2007) is of the opinion that institutions and structures are central in the analysis of conflicts. The theory contends that there are various mechanisms within a society that stimulate violence amongst individuals (Humphreys & Campbell 2011).Evaluating structures is fundamental in understanding domestic and international conflicts. This arises from the fact that conflicts are evident at all levels.
Structural violence theory is very effective in that it provides the analyst with an opportunity to develop a holistic understanding of the society. This arises from the fact that it takes into account the interdependent relationships between institutions, individuals, and other organisations.
One of the dimensions of violence that structural theory takes into account is the vertical dimension that is comprised of the social, economic, and political structures.
Humphreys and Campbell (2011) further contends that the political, economic and legal structures implemented by a particular country contribute to unequal access of various basic needs such as healthcare services. For example, cases of healthcare disparities, high rate of homicides and poor urban schooling are some of the indicators of structural violence in the United States.
Other cases that illustrate the prevalence of structural violence include the Darfur, Bosnia, Rwandan and the Sri Lanka conflicts (Clark 2010). Some of the political and economic structures that are evident in the contemporary society include the General Agreement on Tarrifs and Trade, the World Trade Organisation and the United Nations.
Ramsbotham, Woodhouse & Miall (2011) contend that evaluating the prevailing structures is very important in understanding conflicts. This arises from the fact that most individuals lack autonomy in the process of making decisions. According to Woodhouse and Miaall (2011), individuals’ actions are influenced by diverse relational structures.
By analysing these structures, one is able to understand how various situations of structural violence occur. For example, to understand poverty as one of the dimensions of structural violence, it is important for one to conduct a comprehensive analysis on how the prevailing structures contribute to unequal distribution of resources.
According to Riley (2009), unequal distribution of wealth increases incidences of poverty. A study conducted by the World Institute for Development Economic Research (WIDER) in 2006 revealed that the richest 1% of the individuals own approximately 40% of the total global assets. According to the study, the gap between the rich and the poor is likely to increase in the future.
Furthermore, it is also important to analyze the prevailing political structures and how they hinder equal distribution of resources. Conducting such an analysis can give a clue on the reasons why poverty is very prevalent in some societies.
For example, interactions amongst the political class may result in some individuals receiving more resources compared to others. This results in some areas being deprived of the necessary resources (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse & Miall 2011).
In summary, evaluating the prevailing structures is very important in understanding structural violence. This arises from the fact that it gives insight on the causes of conflicts within the society. Consequently, structural violence theory is very fundamental in analysing conflicts in that it emphasises on the importance of conducting a comprehensive analysis on the relationship between the various structures and agencies.
Analysis on the degree to which reconciliation is important in building long-term peace
Peace if one of the most important aspects in the survival of a society. This arises from the fact that it impacts the nature and the extent to which individuals relate with each other. However, existence of conflicts may hamper such relationships.
The 20th century was characterised by numerous cases of destruction and conflicts as a result of the two World Wars. The outcome of the two wars has led to increment in demand for peace building and reconciliation.
Bar-Siman-Tov (2003) defines peace building to include the various strategies that are designed with the objective of enhancing and developing long-term peace. Peace building strategies are aimed at limiting the recurrence of conflicts.
Alternatively, peace building is defined as the various activities that are undertaken in an effort to understand the causes of conflicts, and to support restoration of interaction amongst individuals. According to Abu-Nimer (2001), the peace building process is comprised of various economic and social activities such as economic reconstruction, promotion of human rights and support for development of democratic institutions.
To build long-term peace, it is important for the parties charged with the responsibility of resolving conflict to incorporate the concept of reconciliation. Bretherton and Balvin (2012) define reconciliation as the process of reinstating broken relationships and learning how to co-exist in a non-violent way despite the radical differences amongst the conflicting parties.
Bretherton and Balvin (2012) asserts that reconciliation is aimed at attaining four main dimensions which include managing contradictions, overcoming polarisation, celebrating the differences amongst the conflicting parties and ending violence. In post war situations, reconciliation is aimed at developing strategies that enhance integration of painful past experiences and nurturing shared value for the future.
Such strategies aid in dealing with the prevailing situation. To be effective in reconciling conflicting parties, it is important for the involved parties to address the prevailing structural injustices. One of the ways through which this can be achieved is by analysing the social, political, economic and legal domains.
To achieve this, reconciliation advocates for integration of various mechanisms. Some of these mechanisms include development of an effective justice system for example tribunals and truth commissions, apologies and institution of communicative history such as memorials.
These mechanisms enhance attainment of long term peace. Bretherton and Balvin (2012) content that ‘reconciliation involves building mutually respective relationships between conflicting parties hence enabling them to work together and resolve the problems that might arise amicably’ (p. 310).
The process of reconciliation is very important in nurturing long term peace. This arises from the fact that it results in transformation of situations of conflicts into peace. One of the ways through which this is attained is by rebuilding trust. Occurrence of conflicts leads to erosion of prevailing social relationships. According to Sen (2010), trust is one of the fundamental elements in rebuilding such relationships.
Moreover, reconciliation is also important in nurturing positive beliefs and attitude towards conflicting parties. This is well illustrated by Sen (2010) who asserts that ‘violence, fear and hatred during incidences of way results in modernisation of old myths and stereotypes with regard to the other party’ (p.25). Reconciliation also enhances healing of traumatic experiences by the parties involved in a conflict.
This is due to the fact that the process contributes to development of a feeling of security amongst the survivors of a conflict. Palmer and Burgess (2012) assert that the reconciliation process enhances healing of emotional and physical wounds. Consequently, the process of reconciliation is an important element in the development of long-term peace.
The role of justice in the reconciliation process
According to Lambourne (2004), justice is one of the most important elements in the peace building process especially in post-conflict situations. Lambourne (2004) further asserts that justice is vital in restoring societies that have previously experienced conflicts such as war.
To improve the success of the reconciliation process, it is essential for the parties charged with the responsibility of resolving conflicts to focus on economic, social and political dimensions of justice. One of the ways through which this can be attained is by integrating transitional justice mechanisms such as formation of the truth and reconciliation commissions.
Such commissions play an important role in stopping the cycle of hatred that if goes unchecked can transcend generations.
For example, the tribunal that was formed in 2004 to promote reconciliation in Cambodia after three decades of the Pol Pot regime was expected to administer justice to the survivors of the brutal regime. Such a mechanism was expected to enhance healing amongst the citizens who suffered trauma (Lambourne 2004).
Secondly, justice enhances the reconciliation process by promoting human rights. One of the ways through which this is achieved is by instituting the rule of law which curbs future occurrence of conflicts. For justice to prevail, the rule of law should be applied indiscriminately to individuals who promote or advocate for violence irrespective of their social, economic or political status.
Other aspects that should be taken into account in order foster reconciliation include development of a comprehensive bill of rights, the constitution and reforming the judicial system. By taking into account the social, economic and legal aspects of justice, the likelihood of the reconciliation process succeeding in enhancing development of long-term peace is increased significantly.
Conclusion
The above analysis underscores the importance of structural violence theory in understanding conflicts. The theory emphasises on the importance of evaluating various structures that may lead to occurrence of conflicts. According to the theory, structural violence may be as a result of legal, political, economic and social structures. Therefore, analysing structures can result to effective conflict resolution.
Additionally, the essay highlights the role of reconciliation in building long-term peace. Reconciliation is cited as one of the key elements that should be taken into account in the development of long-term peace. This arises from the fact that it promotes development of trust and justice amongst conflicting parties.
Reference List
Abu-Nimer, M 2001, Reconciliation, justice and co-existence, Lexington Books, Lanham.
Bar-Siman-Tov, Y 2003, From conflict resolution to reconciliation, Oxford University Press, New York.
Bretherton, D & Balvin, N 2012, Peace psychological in Australia, Springer, New York.
Clark, P 2010, The Gacaca courts, post genocide justice and reconciliation in Rwanda; justice without lawyers, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Ho, K 2007, ‘Structural violence as a human rights violation’, Essex Human Rights Review, vol. 26, no. 2, pp: 1-17.
Humphreys, J & Campbell, J 2011, Family violence and nursing practice, Springer Publication, New York.
Jacoby, T 2007, Understanding conflict and violence: theoretical and interdisciplinary approaches, Routledge, New York.
Lambourne, W 2004, ‘Post conflict peace building: meeting human needs for justice and reconciliation’, Peace, Conflict and Development, vol. 3, no. 4, pp: 1-17.
Palmer, M & Burgess, S 2012, The Wiley-Blackwell companion to religion and social justice, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden.
Sen, V 2010, Trust and conflict; an analysis of the Baku Bae peace movement in Indonesia, Munchen GRIN Verlag, Munchen.
Ramsbotham, O, Miall, H & Woodhouse, T 2011, Contemporary conflict resolution; the prevention, management and transformation of deadly conflicts, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Riley, G 2009, AQA economics modules 1 and 2 digital textbook, Tutor2U, New York.
Available scholarship demonstrates that international institutions continue to play a fundamental role not only in peacebuilding initiatives but also in the provision of justice for victims in post-conflict societies (Meernik, Nicholas, & King 309).
This paper uses the Ugandan and South African case studies to locate the importance of international institutions in contributing to justice within a state after war or political aggression, and also the extent to which these institutions reflect problematic conceptions or relations of power that might hinder justice.
In terms of contributions, it can be argued that international institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) act to provide justice and truth in post-conflict societies with weak judicial systems, hence contributing to peacebuilding by removing war criminals and peace spoilers (Meernik et al 309).
By referring the political conflict concerning the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) to the ICC for action to be taken on the principal perpetrators including the leader Joseph Kony, the Ugandan government hoped that such a legal process would bring lasting harmony and justice to the war-torn northern Uganda (Branch 179). This objective appears to have been met as it has been a while now since the LRA caused breached peace in Uganda, though analysts still believe that the guerilla outfit is still active.
It is also clear that international institutions contribute immensely to the achievement of peace and justice in post-conflict societies by deterrence (Meernik et al 309).
However, going by the Ugandan case, this contribution is yet to be validated as critics argue that the ICC interventions in Uganda have indeed complicated the situation by removing “the LRA’s command’s incentive to leave the bush, which has made peace talks difficult, if not impossible” (Branch 183).
According to these authors, it is obvious that nobody has the capacity to convince the LRA leaders in the Ugandan case to come to the negotiating table in the presence of international arrest warrants by the ICC.
Most of the international institutions adopt the Nuremburg model in ensuring that they use the due process to serve justice to war crimes perpetrators and victims (Mamdani 33). In this context, institutions such as the ICC are seen to contribute to justice by judiciously dealing with perpetrators while contributing to enhancements in human rights and the sustenance of peace.
But while it is clear that most international institutions adopt the Nuremburg model in developing interventions aimed at achieving justice and healing, a challenge exists in that politically-instigated mass violence cannot be holistically perceived as a criminal matter since the criminal actions it involves have profound political consequences (Mamdani 33).
When deeply entrenched political interests and power games are involved, international institutions have largely been unable to provide the needed justice as most are seen as interested parties in the conflict (Branch 185). For instance, the ICC has often been accused in the Ugandan cases as a decoy used by Western powers to destabilize nations for political gains.
Some commentators are of the opinion that international institutions such as the ICC have no capacity to provide justice due to their overreliance of the Nuremberg model, whereby powerful countries are seen to take the role of both the prosecutor and the judges (Mamdani 33).
In such a situation, it would be plausible to employ the CODESA and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) models, which originated from South Africa when the country was seeking to bring justice to victims of the apartheid era. In the South African context, a local solution was found to deal with apartheid conflicts when TRC granted amnesty in return for truth-telling and seeking for forgiveness (Mamdani 33-34).
Lastly, the potential for international institutions to avail justice in post-conflict societies appears limited by the institutions’ orientation to deal with those in power while forgetting that they too could have been instrumental in fueling conflicts or committing atrocities. In the Ugandan case, for example the government-instigated violence has been largely downplayed in ICC investigations as the Office of the Prosecutor limits its focus to LRA’s brutality (Branch 182).
Works Cited
Branch, Adam. “Uganda’s Civil War and the Politics of ICC Intervention.” Ethics & International Affairs. 21.2 (2007): 179-198. Academic Search Premier. Web.
Mamdani, Mahmoud. “The Logic of Nuremburg.” London Review of Books. 35.21 (2013): 33-34. Web.
Meernik, James D., Angela Nicholas and Kim L. King. “The Impact of International Tribunals and Domestic Trials on Peace and Human Rights after Civil War.” International Studies Perspectives. 11.4 (2010): 309-334. Academic Search Premier. Web.
South Africa went through the oppressive apartheid system from 1948 to 1994 when the white minority National Party was voted out, and a Government of National Unity installed. The apartheid system was a very discriminative and racist state-sanctioned system. The white minority class in the country was given first-class citizen status and afforded political and economic privileges. At the same time, the other races were treated as inferior and blatantly discriminated against. During the apartheid regime, the government perpetrated great atrocities against non-White citizens. This led to a lot of resentment and anger against the Whites in the country. When the apartheid government lost the leadership of the country, there was considerable apprehension about what would happen in light of the significant injustices that the apartheid government had engaged in. The new government understood that the dark legacy of the past regime needed to be addressed. As such, one of the opening actions of that the first democratically elected South African Parliament did when it went to work in 1995 was set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) that was going to implement restorative justice in South Africa.
Defining Restorative Justice
Thesnaar (2008) defines restorative justice as “a process whereby all the parties with a stake in the particular offense come together to respond collectively on how to deal with the aftermath of the offense and its implications for the future” (p.56). Unlike retributive justice, which focuses primarily on punishment, this approach attempts to reach a complete understanding of justice and foster healing restoration.
Need for Justice and Reconciliation
When the democratically elected government took power, international human rights advocacy groups supported the implementation of transitional prosecution based on retributive justice. However, the South African leaders rejected this approach, and they sought for a restorative approach to justice. Asmal (2000) suggests that restorative justice and reconciliation were chosen out of a strong desire to end the illegitimate and violent governance of the old regime while ensuring that the nature of governance changes under the new government.
Restorative justice was seen as a necessity for the future prosperity of the country. The TRC, which was to serve this justice, was formed from the understanding that for South Africa’s democracy and development to have a future, the country needed to deal with its past (Verwoerd, 1999). Post-apartheid South Africa had to confront a legacy of violence and abuses committed by the former regime. The legacies of the apartheid system where a white minority dominated needed to be faced. Restorative justice was to be a stepping-stone, helping in the promotion of national unity (Verwoerd, 1999). It was supposed to guide the nation from the injustices of apartheid to a new future of democracy and development for all. Through restorative justice, the injustices committed under the apartheid system would be reviewed and responded to.
Justice Through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
The TRC was taxed with several crucial roles to help in reconciliation and healing. The commission was required to get a complete picture of the gross human rights violations that occurred during the apartheid regime. It was then to offer victims an opportunity to retell their experiences of the violation. The individuals identified as the perpetrators were to be offered amnesty if they gave “full disclosure” of their crimes. Finally, the commission would make recommendations to the head of state, and the South African parliaments concerning reparation and rehabilitations that the commission felt were necessary to bring about healing and avoid a repeat of the crimes in the future.
The South African reconciliation justice system was unique in that while typical truth commissions provided blanket amnesties, the South African commission provided individual amnesty. This amnesty was based on personal application and participation by the perpetrator in the truth-telling process. An important consideration when adopting the TRC is that values of reconstruction and reintegration had to be pursued even as the victims looked for justice. Restorative justice, therefore, fostered peace and under healing for offenders and survivors alike.
Impact of Restorative Justice and Reconciliation
Restorative justice and reconciliation were able to bring healing, and it enabled the country to move forward after the brutal apartheid era. The justice approach helped in the construction of a legitimate record of what had happened. Alfred and Marietjie (2000) state that such records are of great use since they help later generations distinguish between fact and exaggerations and serve as warnings to future generations to avoid the same mistakes. Leebaw (2001) highlights that the TRC demonstrated a deep commitment to peace by imploring perpetrators to confess
Survivors were able to achieve closure, and the nation received the truth. South Africans, in general, and the victims of gross human rights violations under apartheid, in general, felt that the commission had been effective in bringing out the truth (Kashyap, 2009). The TRC was able to generate widespread involvement on a national scale by publicly televising some of the hearings and conferences. Alfred and Marietjie (2000) declare that the use of restorative justice and reconciliation tools were therapeutic, and it contributed significantly to the healing of the people who had encountered gross human rights violations.
Criticism
Despite the positive impacts that the restorative justice reconciliation had in the country, this approach came under heavy criticism from many people. Many South Africans felt that focusing on reconciliation led to a denial of justice, as the victims could not seek civil redress due to the amnesty granted (Asmal, 2000). Some people wanted retributive justice, and they felt that the perpetrators of crimes in the apartheid regime should have been severely punished for their crimes.
Conclusion
The post-Apartheid South African government chose the restorative justice and reconciliation approach to help deal with the gross violations of the past regime. This approach was able to help South Africa transition from the oppressive apartheid system into a democratic system where equality for all people was guaranteed. The South African TRC was regarded as a success, and it has been used as a template for restorative justice by many other countries.
References
Alfred, A. & Marietjie, A. (2000). The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a Therapeutic Tool. Behav. Sci. Law, 18(1), 459-477.
Asmal, K. (2000). Truth, Reconciliation and Justice: The South African Experience in Perspective. The Modern Law Review, 63(1), 1-24.
Kashyap, R. (2009). Narrative and truth: a feminist critique of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Contemporary Justice Review, 12(4), 449–467.
Leebaw, B. (2001). Restorative justice for political transitions: lessons from the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Contemporary Justice Review, 4(3), 267-289.
Thesnaar, C. (2008). Restorative Justice as a Key for Healing Communities. Religion & Theology, 15(1), 53-73.
Verwoerd, W. (1999). Individual and/or social justice after apartheid? The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The European Journal of Development Research, 11(2), 115-140.
How should we punish a criminal who conducted extremely terrible actions? Is the concept “eye for an eye” the best solution for those who murdered a person? Do we have the right to decide who should live and who is to die? These questions are the ones people of modern society ask themselves when they are thinking about the allowability of capital punishment. There are different views on this aspect, but commonly people’s ideas divide them into two groups: those who care for and who is against this type of punishment. One more group can gather people who change their minds depending on the case.
To this one refers Scott Turow, a well-known writer, and lawyer. For many years he was sure that the best way to punish a criminal and let peace come into the hearts of the victim’s family is to sentence the guilty one to death. However, after considering some cases in detail, he understood that a lot of mistakes have been made in this process, and it is not as neat as he believed. If an experienced prosecutor changed his mind and reconsidered the issue, maybe we also should deepen into the subject and make sure that our ratiocinations are right and well-weighted. Capital punishment is a sanction of last resort and mistakes are inadmissible. Measure thrice and cut once; human life is too valuable to let it be over because of a random error. It is better to let even the worst criminal live than to kill an innocent person.
Scott Turow wrote his book Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer’s Reflections on Dealing with the Death Penalty as he wanted to show that the concept of unprejudiced justice, which he supports, is no longer bound with the death penalty. The author shares his thoughts and beliefs regarding several cases from his practice.
Capital punishment, which is also called the death penalty, is the punishment that follows a death sentence and ends with the death of the convict. Scott Turow was firstly directly encountered with such things at the beginning of the 1990th as he took the appeal of Alejandro Hernandez. The man was put into prison for kidnapping, rape, and murder of a ten-year-old girl. He was one of three men indicted to be guilty and soon one of two convicted and sentenced to death.
Of course, such horrible actions as Alejandro Hernandez was claimed to conduct are to be punished with severity, but the guilt is to be proved so that no questions occur when speaking about the case. However, that was not the thing. Scott Turow registers disapproval as the men were indicted even though earlier there was insufficient evidence to blame anyone. Thus, the case was built on the statements of the defendants, who accused each other, with no physical evidence like blood or fingerprints. After several trials Hernandez was sentenced to eighty years in prison, however, his attorneys were sure of his innocence.
That is why Scott Turow thoroughly studied the materials from trials and also came to such a conclusion. Then what can we say about the fair judgment? The man spent almost ten years in prison is not guilty. His death sentence might have been already put into operation. Human life is not a thing that can be restored after the truth came out. This problem also worried Orchia Blessing Iveren, as such information was found: “some of these 78 people spent more than 15 years on death row before their innocence was established 39. Yet, even so, these 78 are the lucky ones, because evidence of their innocence emerged in time to save their lives. We have no way of knowing how many innocent defendants were not so lucky – they were executed and the evidence of their innocence may never emerge” (62).
Considering Scott Turow’s ideas one may conclude that he believes many people think of the death penalty as a utopian solution. They are apt to treat the death of a criminal as the end of the crime committed. However, if we murder the killers, their victims are not coming back and the crimes do not stop. Taking this into account, 15 states (as Alaska, Maine, New York, Nebraska, Michigan, and others) voted to abolish capital punishment (Galliher, Koch, Keys and Guess 210).
In our society, the attention is mostly paid to the criminals, but not to their victims. This approach makes people concentrate on the wrong values. The ritual of killing is shown as an act of justice and deliverance, but is it the best thing we can teach our children? Capital punishment is barbaric, and this idea appeals to many people, the author is one of them (Turow 12). According to the ABC News/Washington Post poll, 52 percent of Americans are against the death penalty, which shows their intention to abolish it.
Several studies showed that even if we sentence a person to death, it will not deter crime (Stearman 21). Scott Turow studies several cases connected with the murder, which proves this fact. For people who are ready to kill, punishment is not the thing to be afraid of.
Among the reasons why capital punishment should be abolished is its price. There was a threefold increase in the costs for prosecuting cases with a death sentence in recent years. Thus, the government spends much money on the death penalty when it is cheaper just to keep convicted criminals in prison without parole. Each death sentence makes do with 3 million dollars, not including administrative costs (Warden 334).
When the citizens are waiting for the guilty person to be found and punished, they place pressure on the prosecutors and police. Under such circumstances, they might not act as they are supposed to (Turow par. 11). This has happened to Brian Dugan, who was suspected along with Alejandro Hernandez. The prosecutor steadily tried to convince others that Dugan was engaged in the murder, however, there was no evidence of this. It was even impossible to prove that the men knew each other. The police informed the prosecutor that the shoe print found at the crime scene was not the size the defendant wore, moreover, it belonged to a woman. Nevertheless, this fact did not reach the defense.
Taking all these into account, we can conclude that the system of capital punishment is not that well-organized and infallible. The death sentence is the mistake that can be rectified only before it comes into action, and if there is a chance of killing an innocent person to punish one for killing, it has no sense. Life in prison is also a way to amerce a criminal, protect others from him/her, and bring peace to the victim’s family, and maybe this one is better.
Works Cited
Galliher, John, Larry Koch, David Keys and Teresa Guess. America Without the Death Penalty: States Leading the Way, Lebanon: UPNE, 2005. Print.
Orchia Blessing Iveren, 2011. Justification for and the Abolition of Capital Punishment Under Human Rights Law. Web.
Stearman, Kaye. The Debate about the Death Penalty, New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2007. Print.